Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while welcoming measures to create new immigration criminal offences, declines to give a Second Reading to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, because an effective removals and deterrence arrangement is fundamental to stopping illegal immigration, but the Bill abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure removals, and abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure a deterrent by restoring illegal migrants’ ability to claim indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship; and because the Bill contains no proposals to limit legal migration, nor limit the eligibility criteria for settlement and citizenship, which means that the Bill will lead to increased illegal and legal immigration.”

It has been seven months since the Government came to office, so we have had a chance to look at their record. I am afraid it does not make for happy reading. Since the general election on 4 July, 24,793 people have illegally, dangerously and unnecessarily crossed the English channel. That is a 28% increase on the same period 12 months previously. The Home Secretary tells us how good her Government’s record is, yet illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch. She promised that she would end the use of asylum hotels. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) asked her when she would deliver on that manifesto commitment, and she did not answer the question. The truth is that, after the election, there were 6,000 more people in asylum hotels: a failure on her watch.

The Home Secretary crows about removal numbers, not mentioning of course that three quarters of those removals were voluntary, and only a tiny fraction relate to people who arrived by small boat. In the first three months of this Government, the number of people who were removed having arrived by small boat actually went down. In fact, the removals of small boat arrivals in those first three months—the most recent period for which figures are available—amount to only 4% of small boat arrivals, so how can she tell us that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is some kind of deterrent? It is not.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The shadow Home Secretary seems keen to reflect on the records of Governments. In 2010, the number of people in the asylum system reached an over-20-year low. By the time the Conservative Government had left office, the number had ballooned by 13 times to 225,000. Will he reflect on who was responsible for that?

[Chris Philp]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows which Government gave an effective asylum amnesty; it was the previous Labour Government. If he is so interested in the asylum backlog, does he know whether it has gone up or down under the new Government? It has gone up, as has the number of illegal migrants crossing the channel, leaving a safe country—France—from which there is no necessity to depart in order to find safety. France has a fully functioning asylum system, does it not?

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

In 2018, 400 people crossed. On the Conservative Government’s watch, 130,000 people crossed the border. Will the shadow Home Secretary apologise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that in 2023 the numbers were going down. Since his Government came to office on 4 July last year, the number has gone up by 28%.

[Sammy Wilson]

The shadow Home Secretary notes that the number of asylum claims has gone up since the Government came to power, yet thousands have been wiped off because those people have been automatically given permission to stay in the United Kingdom. Does he not think that one reason we will continue to see people flooding in is that they know we are an easy touch? They can just come here and get granted asylum.

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The asylum grant rate in this country has gone up in recent months, and is high in comparison with some other European countries. That is obviously a potential pull factor for people considering a dangerous and unnecessary crossing of the English channel.

Let me say a word about the Bill in general before discussing its specifics. The Bill cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who have arrived illegally. That is a shocking move. It creates a pathway to citizenship for people who have entered the country illegally, which will only increase the pull factor, and completely cancels any prospect of establishing a removals deterrent, which the National Crime Agency says is necessary.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

How many people were removed under the previous Government’s so-called deterrent?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the deterrent never even started. The first flight—[Interruption.] The first flight was due to take off on 24 July, but his Government cancelled the deterrent before it had even started. That was their mistake, and as a result illegal crossings have gone up by 28%. This is not a border security Bill, given the measures that I have mentioned; it is a border surrender Bill. It is a weak bill from a weak Government.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was in opposition when we had ferocious debates about Brexit, and Conservative Members used words like “surrender”, “traitors” and “weak”. The shadow Home Secretary is now doing the same in opposition. Does he honestly believe that such language is conducive to getting to a solution? Does he think that it makes any person in this House feel better about themselves? Does he think that it gives him the moral high ground? I think it exposes his inability to conduct an argument in a way that is vaguely civil.

[Chris Philp]

I think a Bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants and cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive illegally is a shocking piece of legislation. That is why we tabled a reasoned amendment.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I have given way a lot. Let me make some progress.

The Home Secretary asked about the Opposition’s position on various topics. Our reasoned amendment makes it clear that we support measures to increase criminal penalties and to legislate against articles for use in serious and organised crime—measures that we introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Bill last year—but we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them. That is why I moved the reasoned amendment.

[Yvette Cooper]

Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary can confirm that the measure in the Illegal Migration Act on citizenship was never commenced because it was unworkable. The Government have strengthened the powers to ensure that small boat arrivals cannot get citizenship by strengthening the rules. We have done more in seven months than the Conservative party did in 14 years. If he really wants to support counter-terrorism-style powers, why is he going to vote against the Bill on Second Reading?

[Chris Philp]

The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. The only problem with the Border Security Commander is that he cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions. They include, in clause 3, publishing a strategic priority document and, in clause 4, a duty to prepare an annual report. Preparing a strategic priority document and publishing an annual report are unlikely to smash the gangs. The Border Security Commander has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, and that deserves its reward.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the reward, and I hope to return one. The director general of the NCA has said:

“The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill should help UK law enforcement act earlier and faster to disrupt people smuggling networks and give us additional tools to target them and their business models.”

The Conservative party is about to vote against the Bill. Why does the shadow Home Secretary think that he knows better than the director general of the National Crime Agency?

[Chris Philp]

The point of a debate is to engage rather than read out a pre-prepared question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Crime Agency has said that we need a deterrent. The Bill removes any legislative prospect of a deterrent, which is why we oppose it.

The Home Secretary talked about various new offences, including endangering life at sea and activities preparatory to supporting illegal migration. Of course, no one from any party in this House wants those things to happen, but the measures that she proposes duplicate the existing provisions in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Facilitating illegal immigration—quite a broad term—is already a criminal offence. Unlike her offence of endangering life at sea, which carries a five-year maximum sentence, section 25 of the Immigration Act states that facilitating illegal migration carries a maximum sentence of life, recently increased from 14 years. Guess who voted against that increase in the sentence? The Home Secretary.

Although we support the thrust of the clauses in the Bill, they are already covered by the tougher existing offence of facilitating illegal immigration. Clauses 19 to 26 contain plans to seize phones, which in principle we support, but that power exists already in section 15 and schedule 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. There is an element of duplication.

Let me move on to the more objectionable parts of the Bill. Clause 37 repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That appears to command some rather unwise enthusiasm from the Government Benches. As I said, the first flight under the Rwanda scheme was due to leave on 24 July, following extensive legal challenge and legislation in this House. Very unwisely, the Government chose never to start that scheme, which would have had a deterrent effect, because it stands to reason that if people know that if they try to cross illegally into a country such as the UK they will be removed to Rwanda, they will not bother in the first place.

We have seen that kind of scheme work elsewhere, with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia around 10 years ago. We have seen it work here as well, with the 2023 removals agreement with Albania. Crossings by Albanians, who were the most numerous cohort crossing the channel, went down by 93%. Again, it stands to reason that if people know that if they arrive here they will be removed, they will not bother crossing in the first place. But hon. Members should not take my word for it. The National Crime Agency says that we need a deterrent, and even the Government’s own Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt—who cannot command very much—says that we need a deterrent.

[Mr Brash]

That is the second time the shadow Home Secretary has said that the National Crime Agency has suggested that Rwanda would be a deterrent. The head of the National Crime Agency has said specifically, “Others are implying that we support Rwanda, and that isn’t true.” Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that?

[Chris Philp]

No, what the National Crime Agency said was that we need a deterrent. That is what it said, that is what I quoted, and the Government’s own Border Security Commander made the same point.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Last year, as part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I visited Rwanda to see the accommodation at Hope hostel that was to be provided to people who were moved under the Rwanda scheme. I learned from that visit that, yes, people would have been deterred from going across the channel, but that migrants who were sent to Rwanda would have been well looked after, well cared for and able to set up a new life, free from the war and famine that they were fleeing.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit Rwanda, which almost no supporter of the Bill has ever bothered doing. It is clear that the Rwanda scheme would have had a deterrent effect, had the Government allowed it to start. The National Crime Agency has said that, and we have seen it work in Australia. The fact that this Government are removing only 4% of people who cross by small boat—meaning that 96% are able to stay—explains why so many more people have crossed the channel under this Government than under the previous regime.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members look themselves in the mirror, with a hand on their heart, and say in good conscience that for a great nation like ours—a country that believes in the international rule of law—to outsource its asylum policy to a country like Rwanda is the correct way to behave? Can he really say that that is the right policy for this country?

[Chris Philp]

The right policy for this country is for the Government, not people smugglers, to decide who comes into this country. Unlike this Government, we have a plan to deliver that. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that France is a safe country. There is no need to cross the English channel to flee war or seek asylum. France has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system.

When it comes to people who are genuinely in need, this country has a proud record. The Home Secretary referred—rather generously, I might say—to initiatives undertaken by the last Government. They include the Ukraine scheme, which allowed in 200,000 or 300,000 people; the resettlement scheme that welcomed around 25,000 Syrians from about 2015 to 2020; the provisions made for British nationals overseas who came here from Hong Kong, and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy. That is the record of this country, and of the previous Government, on people who are in genuine need. But people—overwhelmingly single young men—leaving France, conveyed here by people smugglers, are not the people whose entry we should be facilitating.

Let me move on to the Bill’s provisions to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. One such provision to be repealed, therefore depriving the Government of the ability ever to use it, is section 2, which created an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally. Let me point out to those people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers that section 2(4) of the 2023 Act makes it clear that the provision does not apply if someone comes directly from a place of danger. That is consistent with article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention, which Members will be familiar with. But people who come here directly from France—a safe country where no one is being persecuted, which has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system—should not illegally enter the United Kingdom.

The Bill will also repeal section 32 of the 2023 Act, which prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship. By repealing that section, the Bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable.

The Bill will also repeal sections 57 and 58 of the 2023 Act —a topic on which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum and I have had some correspondence—which concern scientific age assessment methods. Every European country apart from this one uses scientific age assessment techniques, such as an X-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. That is important because quite a few people entering the country illegally who might be in their early or even mid-20s falsely claim to be under the age of 18, and without a scientific age assessment method it is very hard to determine their age. That creates serious safeguarding issues. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, which carries obvious safeguarding risks.

A statutory instrument passed in early 2024—quite soon before the election—commenced the power to use those age assessment techniques. I really hope the new Government will use those powers and start using wrist X-rays, or other techniques, to ensure that people cannot falsely claim to be under 18. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that in her winding-up speech, because we would certainly support her work in that area. As I say, there is an important safeguarding element to this matter, as well as a migration element. I note that in repealing section 57 of the 2023 Act, the Government will no longer be able to treat as over 18 somebody who refuses one of those tests. There are some predating provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but the provision being repealed is stronger, and in the circumstances that may be rather unwise.

There are various things missing from the Bill. We will table various amendments during its passage that will seek to introduce much stronger measures, but I want to point to two in particular now. The first addresses the fact that there is no mechanism in the Bill for a binding annual cap on legal migration.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Chris Philp]

No—I have taken lots of interventions.

I think we can all agree that numbers in recent years have been far too high, and what is needed is a binding cap that Parliament can vote on, so that it can decide how many visas are issued each year. I believe the Prime Minister was asked about that and said he did not agree with it, but I think the Bill is an ideal opportunity to create that power for Parliament—for us, the directly elected representatives of the people—to vote each year on how many visas get handed out. Perhaps the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will execute a considered U-turn and embrace the suggestion I have just made.

On the topic of legal migration, the previous Government —in fact, I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the former Home Secretary, who is in his place—announced an increase to the threshold for dependant visas. It went up somewhat in April last year, and it was due to go up again this April to about £38,000. I would be grateful if the Government could clarify whether they will go ahead with that plan, which would, of course, control some of the numbers.

The second area that requires further legislation is indefinite leave to remain, which the Leader of the Opposition and I spoke about last week. Indefinite leave to remain, as the name implies, confers an indefinite right to reside in the UK and provides a number of privileges, including access to full benefits, social housing and pension rights. It is the Opposition’s view that it should be granted only if a person, having come here for work purposes, has made a genuine contribution—if they have earned more than they have paid in taxes, which we could measure by reference to a salary threshold. If, after someone comes to the UK to work, it turns out they have not worked and have become a burden on the taxpayer, or have worked for a very low level of wages, implying they are not making a net contribution, it strikes us as fair that they should not be granted indefinite leave to remain and that their visa should not be renewed.

Last September, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an analysis showing that migrants on low wages carry a lifetime fiscal cost to the rest of the taxpayers of £500,000. The Centre for Policy Studies recently published an analysis showing that the fiscal cost of those who might be granted ILR in the next four or five years will amount to £234 billion over their lifetime. We do not think it is reasonable for taxpayers to bear so high a cost for people who have arrived only relatively recently and have not made a significant contribution, so we will be tabling amendments to ensure that only those coming here on work visas who have actually made a contribution will be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will support that measure.

The Government have presided over 25,000 illegal crossings since they came into office—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months ago—and have failed to remove 96% of the people who have crossed the channel. They scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it even started, even though the National Crime Agency and their own Border Security Commander said that a deterrent is needed and we have seen it work in Australia. The Bill will cancel the Government’s obligation to remove people who have come here illegally, and we see the Government creating a path to citizenship for illegal migrants. This is a weak Bill from a weak Government, and that is why we will oppose it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I think they probably call that campaigning, but it is up to them to justify how long they spend in the pub, or indeed in this Chamber.

Moving to serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders, Government amendments 14 to 19 will remove Scotland and Northern Ireland from clause 48, which allows electronic monitoring as a condition of serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders in terrorism-related cases. The amendments will ensure that the devolved Governments retain full legislative competence over their existing electronic monitoring regimes.

For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on the gargantuan group of amendments we are dealing with tonight.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 18, and to various other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who are sitting beside me. They toiled with enormous fortitude and patience through 12 Committee sittings. They did extremely diligent and good work, and I put on record my thanks to them both.

The new clauses and amendments that we have tabled are made necessary by the Government’s abject and appalling failure, since they came to office last July, to control small boat crossings of the English channel. They came to office saying that they would “smash the gangs”, a claim that is now in tatters. Let us take a look at what they have done since 4 July last year. Since the election, 35,048 people have illegally crossed the English channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period the previous year.

This year—2025—how is smashing the gangs going so far? Well, 11,806 people have crossed, which is the worst start to a year in history. That is an appalling and abject failure, for which this Government are responsible. Yesterday alone, 232 people crossed, and we understand that today, as we stand here, several hundred more people have made that illegal crossing. There is no control over who they are. There are suggestions that some of the suspects in the recent Iranian terror case were living in asylum accommodation and may therefore have crossed by small boat. I certainly recall that some people crossing the channel had very serious prior convictions. The Government have no idea who these people are, and they certainly have no control.

The people crossing are almost entirely young men. They have pushed themselves to the front of the queue by paying people smugglers. I do not see them as victims; they are committing a criminal offence by entering the United Kingdom in this way. It is a criminal offence contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as I am sure everybody knows.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

If the former leader of the Liberal Democrats wants to say something to the contrary, I would be glad to give way.

[Tim Farron]

I could not help myself, I’m afraid. Some 87% of Eritreans coming over are refugees. The right hon. Gentleman talks about young men. The refugees are young men, because Christian young men in Eritrea are conscripted to murder their own communities, so of course they are disproportionately represented. Why does he not take part in this debate on the basis of evidence, rather than playing tabloid nonsense?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman will know that around the world, there are very many female and child refugees. The last Government welcomed many of them here under the UK resettlement scheme from Syria. The young men who push themselves to the front of the queue in Calais are displacing potentially more deserving applicants. They are embarking from France, which is a manifestly safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. Nobody—including young men from Eritrea—needs to leave France to seek sanctuary when they can perfectly well claim asylum in France. Article 31 of the refugee convention, which in general terms prohibits the criminalisation of refugees, expressly says that that only applies if someone comes “directly” from a place of danger. France is not a place of danger. Much better that we choose the deserving cases, rather than having people pay criminal gangs to enter this country illegally from a place, namely France, which is safe.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The last Government introduced the idea of having age verification. That is important, because the evidence supports the suggestion that some young men claim to be younger than they are. Many other countries use medical age verification systems. Does my right hon. Friend have a reason why the Government decided not to take our amendments forward in Committee, and why they are not considering implementing them now?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. In fact, he draws me to new clause 12, which we tabled. It mandates the Government to get on with implementing scientific age assessments, which scientifically verify if someone is or is not over the age of 18. Every other European country uses these tests. It could be, for example, an X-ray of the wrist.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will give way in a minute. There are more complicated techniques these days, such as testing DNA methylation, and other less intrusive tests. We are the only country not to use them.

Many people who illegally cross the channel claim to be under 18—they usually claim to be 17—when common sense would often suggest that they are far older. There are documented cases where men with beards have ended up in schools with teenage girls. [Interruption.] I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) in a moment. I ask the Minister, when she replies, to explain to the House her plans for introducing these tests. We are an outlier in Europe; we are the only country not to use them. It is important from a safeguarding perspective to make sure that people who claim to be 17 really are 17, and not in their mid-20s. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal was very keen to intervene, and I think enthusiasm deserves its reward.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his condescending tone after his deluded rant. I must say to him that he is misleading the House: 400 crossed in 2018, and more than 150,000 have crossed since. The majority of those were on the Conservative Government’s watch, so how they can claim that that happened on Labour’s watch is beyond me. As the new expert—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I certainly agree that the hon. Gentleman has had long enough, and his constituents may well agree in a few years’ time. I gave the figures very clearly: since the election, 35,000 people have crossed the channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period a year before. So far, this year has been the worst year on record—the worst year in history—for illegal channel crossings. The claims to smash the gangs lie in tatters.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We missed the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee. Given the sophistication of the organised immigration crime threat to the country, will he explain why he plans on voting against the Bill tonight when it provides counter-terrorism style powers that the National Crime Agency and our security services have told us they want to be able to bring to bear on this serious question?

[Chris Philp]

I missed being in Committee as well, and I missed the prospect of spending hours and hours in the hon. Lady’s company. Perhaps on some other occasion an opportunity will present itself.

The hon. Lady invites me to comment on a Third Reading matter, but since she asked the question, when we vote on a Bill at Third Reading—a yes or no vote—we are voting on it in its totality. While the counter-terror measures may have a very marginal benefit—it will be no more than marginal, as she should know—the Bill will also do some extremely damaging things that will make it a lot harder to control our borders. For example, clause 38 repeals pretty much the entirety of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will answer the question first.

Among other things, the Illegal Migration Act requires the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally, and it says there is no path to citizenship for somebody who comes to this country illegally, which is a very sensible measure. This Bill repeals almost all of that. The Bill also removes from the statute book the legislative basis to implement a removals deterrent. One of the first things the Government did on coming into office was cancel the Rwanda scheme.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

No, I will answer the question first.

The Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. The first flight had been due to take off on 24 July. Everybody, including the National Crime Agency, has warned that without a removals deterrent we are not going to stop the boats. Law enforcement alone—important though it is—is not enough, and a border security commander with no powers is certainly not enough.

Experience from around the world shows that we need a removals deterrent. If people enter the UK illegally from France and are rapidly removed to somewhere else, be it Rwanda or elsewhere, others will not attempt the crossing because they know that removal will follow. Australia tried something very similar about 10 years ago—it was called Operation Sovereign Borders. Australia had a bigger problem than we did—at that time there were 50,000 people a year crossing—and within the space of only a few months, the removals deterrent it used stopped the illegal maritime arrivals, as Australia called them, entirely. The number went to zero, and it saved lives in the process. Australia used an island called Nauru rather than Rwanda, but the principle is the same.

Home Office Ministers must by now be regretting their hastiness, because in the absence of any removals deterrent, the numbers have gone through the roof. As I said already, this year so far has been the worst in history. Without a removals deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the crossings.

Clause 37 of the Bill repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and amendment 32 seeks to remove clause 37. There will probably come a time—if not today, then in six months; and if not in six months, then in 12 months—when Labour Ministers will realise that their plans are not working, that the numbers are getting worse, and that without a removals deterrent they are not going to stop the boats. That is why this Bill and their policy is so misguided, and it is why the numbers this year have been the worst in history.

[Jo White]

I wonder whether the shadow Home Secretary could comment on the views of his colleague the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who said during the Public Bill Committee that

“immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 347.]

I wonder whether he could also comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who said in Committee:

“The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 335.]

[Chris Philp]

I agree with both my colleagues, and that is why we have tabled amendments and new clauses to address this issue. I will come on to those in a moment.

It was a Labour Government that chose to cancel the removals deterrent before it started, and that is why the numbers are higher than they have ever been in history. It is a result of their choices.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Talking of the Rwanda scheme, the previous Tory Government spent £700 million on a scheme that saw four volunteers removed. That figure included £290 million given to Rwanda for nothing in return and £134 million on IT systems that were never used. Can we get a refund?

[Chris Philp]

As I said already, the plan was never started. The first plane was due to take off on 24 July, but the Labour Government cancelled it within days of coming to office. The money would have been extremely well spent had the scheme started, because the deterrent effect would have stopped the boats, meaning that we would not have tens of thousands of people in hotels costing billions and billions.

While we are on the topic of hotels, let us look at how the Labour Government’s pledge during the election to end the use of asylum hotels is going. The numbers in asylum hotels have gone up by 8,000 so far under this Labour Government. Speaking of removals deterrents, I was in Berlin four or five weeks ago talking to members of the CDU party, which is now in Government. The incoming German Government intend to implement a removals deterrent very similar in concept to the Rwanda scheme. So other Governments around the world have realised that they have to do this; it worked in Australia, and the new German Government will be doing something very similar. It is just our Government who are going headlong in the opposite direction.

[Mike Martin]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

Turning to the amendments on indefinite leave to remain, new clause 11 would limit eligibility for ILR to 10 years, and new clause 17 would set various conditions on ILR. New clause 17 essentially says that to get ILR after 10 years a person has to have made an economic contribution, and cannot be a burden on other taxpayers. Those strike me as very fair measures.

I notice that in the immigration announcement by the Prime Minister this morning, he made reference to 10 years for ILR, despite the fact that the Minister and her colleagues voted against that measure just a few weeks ago. I wonder what has magically changed their minds. If they are serious about such a measure, will they support new clause 11, which would implement what the Prime Minister announced this morning, and vote for it later today?

If I understand the Prime Minister’s announcement correctly, he said that when someone reaches 10 years of residence, they automatically qualify for indefinite leave to remain under the Government’s proposals. What we propose in new clause 17 is that there should be conditionality, even after 10 years. The person should be making some kind of contribution to the country in order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister take the opportunity to agree with that approach and therefore support new clause 17?

I will turn now to the two new clauses that we intend to push to a vote this evening. First, new clause 18 would establish a binding cap on immigration numbers each year, to be voted on in Parliament. It would be democratically accountable and completely transparent. It will be up to Parliament to debate what the number should be, but I would argue that it should be a lot lower than any recent number we have seen, and indeed a lot lower than the recent forecasts from the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

Let me finish my point.

The critical point is that whatever one’s views on the number, it would be Parliament that voted to cap migration every year. Never again would we see immigration rise to levels far higher than anyone intended. We would never again see unintended consequences, where visa rules are set up but numbers end up being much higher. A good example of that is the health and social care visa, which was initially supposed to be for only a few thousand people but ended up being for hundreds of thousands. With a cap mechanism in place, that would never happen again.

I invite the Minister to tell me, when she responds, whether she would support a binding annual cap, decided by this Parliament. Will she support democratic accountability for that number, and if not, why on earth not? I can see no reason at all why this elected Parliament should not set the limit each year and why we should instead end up with numbers that many of us would think are far too high.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with great confidence, as ever—and great volume, I have to say. He is very clear about having the cap, but it is less clear what level he believes it should be set at. He says that it should be lower than the current numbers, but from his experience and with his confidence, what level does he feel it should be set at? What would his first proposal be for the cap?

[Chris Philp]

How about the hon. Gentleman votes for the cap this evening, and then we can debate what level it should be set at? We are not going to debate the level of a cap that currently does not even exist. His own Front Benchers are trying to deny him and every Member of this House a voice on this issue. If Labour Members believe in Parliament deciding these issues and in democratic accountability, they will vote for new clause 18 and let Parliament decide what the cap should be.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The cap idea builds on work that the last Government wanted to bring forward in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The last Government asked councils to work out how many they could accommodate. It seems remarkably practical to say that while we are a generous nation able to look after people in need, that comes with a capacity. The whole idea would be to implement a cap and for all councils in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to say what number they could hold, and for us to vote on it as a nation. Is that something my right hon. Friend would consider when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is germane to the earlier discussion about people crossing the channel illegally. So long as we have 11,000 or 12,000 people crossing the channel a year—as I said, this is the worst year ever—it is very difficult to create safe and legal routes, because our capacity is completely taken up by people entering the country illegally.

If we can stop illegal migration by using the measures I suggested, and a removals deterrent in particular, that will create capacity for a limited safe and legal route for people who we—the Government and Parliament—judge to be deserving. We did that for the Syria crisis, where the UK resettlement scheme went to refugee camps on the Syrian borders, identified the most vulnerable refugees—often women and children—and brought them to the UK, instead of having people crossing the channel illegally and pushing their way to the front of the queue. That is exactly what a new, tougher approach on illegal immigration would facilitate.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make a bit of progress.

The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone.

The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments.

A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders?

In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950.

That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member is clearly concerned about child protection. Did he read the testimony of the Children’s Commissioner about the children who made their way to our country and went missing in the system? They were victims of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation—some of the most horrendous things that can happen. Does he regret the role of his Government in facilitating such abuse?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary is aware that time is running on.

[Chris Philp]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will follow your injunction to wind up. Of course, we need to pay attention to the rights and protection of children, but having people smuggled across the English channel on boats does not in any way help with that.

If the Government are serious about getting back control of the immigration system and stopping illegal immigration, they will support our measures that would put a cap on migration and repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

New clause 8 will deny refugee status to those who commit sexual offences. We also have the work being announced on narrowing article 8, which will allow Parliament to give more direction to judges about how the rules ought to be interpreted. The immigration rules reflect the requirements of the ECHR generally, including the qualified nature of article 8, setting requirements that properly balance the individual right to respect for family and private life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the UK by controlling immigration.

[Chris Philp]

The Minister mentioned the provision to prevent certain sex offenders from claiming asylum. While that is a welcome step, what will happen in practice is that the sex offender will simply make a claim under article 3 of the ECHR instead. I have seen dozens and dozens of cases like that, and that is precisely why we need to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. Otherwise, there will just be a huge loophole, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) pointed out.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

If we disapplied the Human Rights Act, people would just go to the ECHR anyway, and a lot of these cases would end up in Strasbourg, which would take even longer. Disapplying the Human Rights Act would also mean that other countries that we have to work and collaborate with to deal with cross-border people smuggling would not work with us. The Conservatives had many huge rows with people and went around the world making it look as though they did not believe in the rule of law. This Government do believe in the rule of law and we will carry on upholding the rule of law; we regard that as an important part of the value system we have in this country.

On new clause 18 and the cap on non-visitor visas, as always the Conservatives talk a good talk now that they are safely in opposition, having not delivered when they were in government. They promised time after time to reduce net migration down to the tens of thousands—they did it in their manifestos and in the many different manifestations of Conservative Governments that we saw plough through the House, especially in the past four years—and what did they do? They quadrupled net migration. We do not need a cap; we need to get migration down, fundamentally lower than it is now, to make the system fair and effective. In order to do that, we have published a White Paper today and introduced further measures in this Bill. We will come back to this issue to ensure that we can deliver—unlike the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this unexpected opportunity. The reason the Opposition will vote against the Bill is that it does nothing to restore control of our country’s borders. It repeals the legislative basis for a removals deterrent, which is needed to stop people crossing the English channel. The fact that the Labour Government cancelled that deterrent before it started is why illegal crossings have gone up by 29% since the last election, and why this year has been the worst in history for illegal crossings of the English channel. This Bill weakens border controls, and it removes the powers that the Government could otherwise exercise to control our borders. They are failing, and this Bill will do nothing to restore control of our borders.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.